Discuss the latest comic book news and front page articles, read or post your own reviews of comics, and talk about anything comic book related. Threads from the two subforums below will also show up here. News Stand topics can also be read and posted in from The Asylum.

If you had to swear an oath in court that you thought I meant that 100 less people buying Brian Wood's books would end his career, would you really say you did? If my intent wasn't clear, that's understandable, but I'm not an idiot. I don't think 100 less people can kill X-Men.

But the intent is still the same. What if more groups do what she said? Fine, not 10. 500. 1000. Nothing in my argument changes because of the number chosen.

Do you see the difference?

And those 10 groups don't have to be 10 groups of 10. It could be 10 retailers. 10 advertisers. Whatever. I don't know where 100 people even came from.

Sure, I'd swear to it in court, since the original discussion was about her group of friends that amounted to 10 and you didn't bother to quantify your initial statement. While you could have meant 500, 1000, or 10000 legless puppies who use Wood comics to piddle on, you could have also meant 10 similar groups of 10.

McKegan wrote:Sure, I'd swear to it in court, since the original discussion was about her group of friends that amounted to 10 and you didn't bother to quantify your initial statement. While you could have meant 500, 1000, or 10000 legless puppies who use Wood comics to piddle on, you could have also meant 10 similar groups of 10.

The thing is that ‘misandry,’ as it is, is a “joke” because that ‘misandry,’ as most Male Rights Activists (MRAs) and men in general understand it, cannot exist. Individual women can hate individual men, but because society as an institution is so skewed in favor of men, there’s no such thing as institutional misandry, as there is with misogyny. The word was coined in the 1970s, mostly to discredit feminists as “man-haters.”

Criticism of the word “misandry” (from the word’s Wiki article):

In his 1997 book The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy, sociologist Allan G. Johnson stated that accusations of man-hating have been used to put down feminists and shift attention onto men in a way that reinforces male-centered culture.[21] Johnson said that the word misandry did not appear in dictionaries until recently[22] and that comparisons between misogyny and misandry are misguided because mainstream culture offers no comparable anti-male ideology. He says in his book that accusations of misandry work to discredit feminism because “people often confuse men as individuals with men as a dominant and privileged category of people.”[21] He wrote that given the “reality of women’s oppression, male privilege, and men’s enforcement of both, it’s hardly surprising that every woman should have moments where she resents or even hates ‘men’.”[21]

There is no such thing as being “sexist” toward a man. To be sexist (or racist, etc.) implies that the person who is doing the hating has privilege and power over the object of their hate, which, in our society, is not true of women over men. So a woman can certainly be a misandrist, in the sense that she hates all men, but to say that that equates with sexism against women and institutional misogyny is a way men shift focus away from woman and back to themselves.

There is no such thing as being “sexist” toward a man. To be sexist (or racist, etc.) implies that the person who is doing the hating has privilege and power over the object of their hate, which, in our society, is not true of women over men.

I agree that many white males try and turn racism and sexism around, but you can be racist and not have privilege and power. Are we seriously saying (and I know it's not racist, but bigotry) that Catholics and Protestants in Ireland weren't racist towards each other?

The only reason there is an implication that only the powerful group can be racist/sexist is because they usually use it to oppress the weak, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work in reverse.

That's a faulty argument you can hate me cause I'm a man, George Wallace can hate blacks, and black people can hate me cause I'm white. Regardless of power, it's just wrong to hate because of sex, race, creed, religion... Hell it's just wrong to hate.It's another tactic, like crying tone argument to allow you to argue in what ever manner you want to. Which is also wrong.

ReturnoftheMack wrote:A cautionary tale of what? A good life. A great family. A great job.

Yes kids, don't become a rational successful human being. Be a hypocrite instead.

You still haven't answered my other question (and I answer all of yours). Do you have self-awareness? Do you see that you are doing the same things you accuse me of?

Yep. I'm aware and, frankly, embarrassed that I let myself drop to that level. I find your views on what's acceptable male-female behavior reprehensible and won't back down on that. Based on past interaction with you, you are comfortable with your base. You and I will probably never agree (thank God), and that's ok. You get to live with your morals, I get to live with mine. Ugh.

alaska1125 wrote:Yep. I'm aware and, frankly, embarrassed that I let myself drop to that level. I find your views on what's acceptable male-female behavior reprehensible and won't back down on that. Based on past interaction with you, you are comfortable with your base. You and I will probably never agree (thank God), and that's ok. You get to live with your morals, I get to live with mine. Ugh.

Furthermore, taking a definition to a specific degree like that is how frag defends wood's actions as not being harassment because it's not in the work place and therefore doesn't qualify. So now you are arguing in the same manner as he.

thefourthman wrote:Furthermore, taking a definition to a specific degree like that is how frag defends wood's actions as not being harassment because it's not in the work place and therefore doesn't qualify. So now you are arguing in the same manner as he.